Butschi

So far Business Insider appears to be the only source. I found a few reports in other media but everyone was quoting Business Insider. I can't say too much about credibility but given how generally uninformed German mass media is w.r.t. the finer details of this war, I doubt there is much real fact checking going on.
On a personal note: Could we please reduce the general Germany-bashing a bit? As I have said here severals times, I am not much of a Scholz-fan myself and Scholz is not Germany. Moreover, as (I think) Napoleon once said, never assume ill will when you can explain something with incompetence instead... Third point: While I often share the irritation caused by German politics, we should still keep in mind (and here I have to kind of defend Scholz): Germany's democratically elected chancellor is still called Scholz, not Selenskyj or Duda or Biden. So, while it is legitimate to ask or even demand something of a country it is also legitimate for said country not to grant everything. Not meant inflammatory and, as I said, I don't like much of what Scholz & Co decided (or rather did not decide) in the past.

So far Business Insider appears to be the only source. I found a few reports in other media but everyone was quoting Business Insider. I can't say too much about credibility but given how generally uninformed German mass media is w.r.t. the finer details of this war, I doubt there is much real fact checking going on.
On a personal note: Could we please reduce the general Germany-bashing a bit? As I have said here severals times, I am not much of a Scholz-fan myself and Scholz is not Germany. Moreover, as (I think) Napoleon once said, never assume ill will when you can explain something with incompetence instead... Third point: While I often share the irritation caused by German politics, we should still keep in mind (and here I have to kind of defend Scholz): Germany's democratically elected chancellor is still called Scholz, not Selenskyj or Duda or Biden. So, while it is legitimate to ask or even demand something of a country it is also legitimate for said country not to grant everything. Not meant inflammatory and, as I said, I don't like much of what Scholz & Co decided (or rather did not decide) in the past.

So far Business Insider appears to be the only source. I found a few reports in other media but everyone was quoting Business Insider. I can't say too much about credibility but given how generally uninformed German mass media is w.r.t. the finer details of this war, I doubt there is much real fact checking going on.
On a personal note: Could we please reduce the general Germany-bashing a bit? As I have said here severals times, I am not much of a Scholz-fan myself and Scholz is not Germany. Moreover, as (I think) Napoleon once said, never assume ill will when you can explain something with incompetence instead... Third point: While I often share the irritation caused by German politics, we should still keep in mind (and here I have to kind of defend Scholz): Germany's democratically elected chancellor is still called Scholz, not Selenskyj or Duda or Biden. So, while it is legitimate to ask or even demand something of a country it is also legitimate for said country not to grant everything. Not meant inflammatory and, as I said, I don't like much of what Scholz & Co decided (or rather did not decide) in the past.

While quantity may still have a quality of its own, we surely have seen that it doesn't have a quality on its own...
Btw. given how prices of everything related to building a house sky-rocketed over the last years, stealing toilets sounds like a reasonable thing if your meagre soldier's pay can't keep up with your expenses. 😉

I meant to comment on this a few days ago... it is really hard to stay up-to-date with this thread. 😉
I'm no historian, just generally interested in this topic. I think you or the OpEd somewhat overestimate the impact the Nuremberg trials had on the general German population. I don't mean to diminish the importance of the trials. They were important in for the first time actually making the ruler of a country accountable for the crimes they commited. That was a powerful message to other rulers. They also made the crimes visible. However, they also allowed the common people to somewhat detach from all this. The top Nazis were convicted, the common people were rather superficially de-nazified and so the blame could be put on Hitler and his cronies who somehow demonically managed to seduce the people (which is still a theme that often repeated in many documentaries).
What's more, during the first few years, the Germans were much more busy generally surviving than facing their crimes. Afterwards, when the (West) German "Wirtschaftswunder" (economic miracle) kicked in, people didn't want to be bothered with the past and generally just didn't talk about the 3rd Reich. The reckoning came later when the following generation started asking what their parents had done.
Also, the indeed relatively thorough historical investigation of what happend during 1933-1945 alone did not make the Germans good democrats by itself. Apart from the fact that of course, the Allies did not actually give West Germany a choice, what really helped was that the people profited economically from being on this side of the Iron Curtain. They were actually better off after getting rid of the Nazis. The famous Marshall Plan, for instance, although by itself it had little real economic impact, the mere seeing everywhere "this was built with the help of the Marshall Plan" did a lot.
So, to get back on topic: I don't really think something akin to the Nuremberg trials would have changed that much after the fall of the Soviet Union. I guess that most Russians actually know the Soviet rulers weren't really nice guys. But in the end democracy and capitalism did not improve the lives of the common people. Putin did - whether by correlation or causation or just merely perception doesn't matter.

Maybe, as an afterthought: If we want to draw historical parallels... Maybe the more relevant part is how the Nazis came to power instead of how they ended. Democracy was weak during that time and politians cared more about there little power games than about the people. Then came the Great Depression which hit Germany extremely hard. Enter Hitler who blamed democracy and not only promissed improving the economic situation but actually did so after 1933 (again, it doesn't matter that he used plans drawn up by the previous administration and that Hitler could claim the effects the general recovery of the global economy had for himself).

This is something that each person needs to decide and I am not taking sides.  To see the horrors of war can be desensitizing.  To not see the horrors of war can also be desensitizing because it makes war abstract when it actually is about ripping human bodies apart.  Easy to talk about glory and courage and duty until one sees someone w a face wound. 

Since I remember, for sure before this war started, I had a rule not to watch videos where people explicitly die or are hurt, and have in general abide by this, as it is just too disturbing for me and serves no point. I'd by default react with revulsion to stuff like this.Yet this one somehow just slipped through the filter - and this is really what exposure to violence, even through very indirect means like videos does to a person, desensitization kick in without you even noticing it. I don't know how to feel about it really, for sure it's disturbing 😕

Straying off topic here... As a (particle) physicist I hope (and I'm also quite convinced) that we are not going back to nuclear power. There is no CO2 coming out of the chimney but that's about the only positive thing I can think of. While nuclear power does not rely on fossile fuel in the sense that it doesn't consist of dead animals and plants it is also not regenerative and really doesn't grow on trees. It is really like with gas: yes, you can get the stuff from "friendly nations" like Canada and Australia but one of the biggest suppliers is Kazachstan. Mining the stuff is really nasty and then there is the problem of nuclear waste and not to mention the danger of accidents. Yes, there are ideas and concepts how to handle the latter two but they are more or less just that: ideas and concepts and by no means prooven. What's more, nuclear power is just not economically competitive.
No, I hope we neither go back to nuclear power nor rely on LNG for long - the only benefit of US LNG compared to Russian gas is that it's not Russian. What we really should do is invest massively in renewable energy sources and become independent, energy-wise.

Last comment on the topic, sorry for derailing the thread but I guess the question where we get our energy from is of some interest w.r.t. to Russia.
If you like your birds, start by killing your cats, then remove glass windows. 😉https://www.statista.com/chart/15195/wind-turbines-are-not-killing-fields-for-birds/
Very good video where Prof. Harald Lesch explains why the math for SMRs doesn't work out, neither w.r.t. climate change, nor for risk mitigation (compared to 'conventional' nuclear power plants), nor even economically. Sorry, in German but decent automatic translation to English.
 

No, won't happen.
Two reasons: one, there is no political will. Except for the extreme right (10% votes) no party actively supports nuclear power. Two, it is not economically feasible. The companies that run the 3 reactors declined an extension. It is just too expensive compared to alternatives.
Building new plants takes decades and would be too late anyway.
Saudi-Arabia is investing heavily into solar power and the creation of hydrogen. They know that the time for oil is running out. But they have a lot of space with a lot of sunshine, a lot of money and the infrastructure to ship stuff from their ports all over the world. And the world need a lot of hydrogen for steel making and for powering heavy vehicles.
Russia has no such option.

Straying off topic here... As a (particle) physicist I hope (and I'm also quite convinced) that we are not going back to nuclear power. There is no CO2 coming out of the chimney but that's about the only positive thing I can think of. While nuclear power does not rely on fossile fuel in the sense that it doesn't consist of dead animals and plants it is also not regenerative and really doesn't grow on trees. It is really like with gas: yes, you can get the stuff from "friendly nations" like Canada and Australia but one of the biggest suppliers is Kazachstan. Mining the stuff is really nasty and then there is the problem of nuclear waste and not to mention the danger of accidents. Yes, there are ideas and concepts how to handle the latter two but they are more or less just that: ideas and concepts and by no means prooven. What's more, nuclear power is just not economically competitive.
No, I hope we neither go back to nuclear power nor rely on LNG for long - the only benefit of US LNG compared to Russian gas is that it's not Russian. What we really should do is invest massively in renewable energy sources and become independent, energy-wise.

Straying off topic here... As a (particle) physicist I hope (and I'm also quite convinced) that we are not going back to nuclear power. There is no CO2 coming out of the chimney but that's about the only positive thing I can think of. While nuclear power does not rely on fossile fuel in the sense that it doesn't consist of dead animals and plants it is also not regenerative and really doesn't grow on trees. It is really like with gas: yes, you can get the stuff from "friendly nations" like Canada and Australia but one of the biggest suppliers is Kazachstan. Mining the stuff is really nasty and then there is the problem of nuclear waste and not to mention the danger of accidents. Yes, there are ideas and concepts how to handle the latter two but they are more or less just that: ideas and concepts and by no means prooven. What's more, nuclear power is just not economically competitive.
No, I hope we neither go back to nuclear power nor rely on LNG for long - the only benefit of US LNG compared to Russian gas is that it's not Russian. What we really should do is invest massively in renewable energy sources and become independent, energy-wise.

That video is properly scary. It really is genuinely like aiming, tracking and destroying an armoured target in a (sorry) computer game I played a couple of years ago.
It worries me when war becomes a game.
Admittedly it's much worse even than that - people sat in an office in Lincolnshire unleash airborne death from drones over Africa, then go home to play with the kids. I don't want my own country's armed forces to face unnecessary danger but when you can detach yourself from reality behind a screen like this it feels that this century is drastically changing the basic nature of war.

Interesting thought. Tbf. I think if Putin calculated on trans-Atlantic relations to further deteriorate with a few more years of Trump he would have been right. I still doubt most people in the US realize just how much trust was shattered in just 4 years of Trump's administration. May well be that even if Trump had supported Ukraine, NATO would stand much less united than it does now.

And the latter two are not going to happen anytime soon. Legally (although I'm seriously no expert on that) NATO membership would only be possible with a real peace contract, a cease fire and a frozen conflict are not enough. I also imagine a fast track towards EU membership wouldn't sit too well with Turkey - they have been waiting for this for decades - so they could veto NATO membership. In Germany, there are many who would rather have Ukraine become a neutral state and I think France may be similar. 
EU membership is also very unlikely to happen soon.
Turkey and the Balkan states have been held in limbo for a long time, so it would be difficult to argue why an exception should be made for Ukraine. With every country having veto power, EU is already pretty inefficient and there are many who say that reforms should be made before any new members are accepted. Ukraine maybe has too close ties to Poland which is not the most popular member right now due to its autocratic tendencies. It could be perceived as making the Visegrad Faction even stronger. Adding more and more net receivers means less money for the other receivers. Not to mention that we want resume normal business with Russia at some point, so let's not be too nice to Ukraine. /irony off

And the latter two are not going to happen anytime soon. Legally (although I'm seriously no expert on that) NATO membership would only be possible with a real peace contract, a cease fire and a frozen conflict are not enough. I also imagine a fast track towards EU membership wouldn't sit too well with Turkey - they have been waiting for this for decades - so they could veto NATO membership. In Germany, there are many who would rather have Ukraine become a neutral state and I think France may be similar. 
EU membership is also very unlikely to happen soon.
Turkey and the Balkan states have been held in limbo for a long time, so it would be difficult to argue why an exception should be made for Ukraine. With every country having veto power, EU is already pretty inefficient and there are many who say that reforms should be made before any new members are accepted. Ukraine maybe has too close ties to Poland which is not the most popular member right now due to its autocratic tendencies. It could be perceived as making the Visegrad Faction even stronger. Adding more and more net receivers means less money for the other receivers. Not to mention that we want resume normal business with Russia at some point, so let's not be too nice to Ukraine. /irony off

What support? *sigh*

But that all is totally beside the point: Really, I don't mean this to be inflammatory, but for quite a while now I'm trying to understand this: Your country is in a bad situation and wants support from another country. What's the point, then, in antagonizing them? What do you think to gain by it? Like it or not, Steinmeier represents the German state. As such he is not just the person Steinmeier, just as your president is not just the person Selenskyj. If the president of one state makes the head of another state a persona non grata then this is not just about either of both as a person but about how one state communicates with another.

Eh - wut?
Ritually and publicly humiliate the President of Germany?
You think that wouldn't be utterly destructive, pointless and immature?
For sure I think it was silly for Zelensky to not invite him. That was dumb. Zelensky's job is to save Ukraine, asap. Germany is the USA of Europe. You need something big, expensive and right now? Better get the Frankenfurters on your side. I thought it was very amateur of Zelensky. I understand the emotions but hes gotta think past that. Ive lived and worked in Germany; politeness, professionalism and cool-headedness are deep cultural characteristics for them, and they absolutely dont appreciate bad manners, excitableness and personal slights, especially in a business transaction. Especially then.
Zelensky getting personal means he didn't and doesn't "get" the Germans. For Ukrainians, this is a national war of survival, a moral crusade (I agree). For Germany, this is geopolitical business, transactional and must have mutual profit (Real Politik). Not understanding that reality, not being able to view from the German side, was a strategic failure. 
Insulting the German President, a fellow Head of State*, has increased German reluctance which just lengthens the war and leads directly to more dead Ukrainians. Zelensky will need to maneuver around that, or straight up apologize in some shape or form (The stress of war is a reasonable excuse).
Why add political and diplomatic friction to the success of your National Defense? Not smart.
 
*You'll notice I'm talking about the office of President, not the man, Steinmeier, who I personally feel is a human weasel flawed and compromised, yet was selected by the German electorate (via the Federal Convention) to represent Germany. But as said in Band of Brothers:
Especially if, gratingly, you need that two-legged rodent Politician to do something vital for you.

True and I'm well aware of that. Can he be blamed... maybe not, is it wise? Certainly no. The thing is, Steinmeier is not just Steinmeier but the head of the German state, even if only for ceremony. I don't like him either, and I wouldn't want to inflict any of his boring speeches an anyone. Still, that's the way deplomacy works. By insulting the head of state, by extension you insult the whole country and while humanly understandable, it is not something you should be doing in such a situation. As I said, try that with the British Queen...

You are right. Still, that's not the point. The result is what matters: It's like in every other (democratic) country, Scholz gets elected by Germans, not by Poles or Ukrainians.
Also, I hope you see the irony in your statement: a) Your government usually doesn't care about how it is perceived by the rest of the EU as long as it sits well with their voters. b) Usually, the last thing especially the eastern european countries want is strong Germany. Another perception thing: I think Germans are used to be... well, not liked by people who very much like to take our money. So, I guess, losing face is something that for many is not that important, either.
 

I am really no fan of our chancellor. I'm in favour of helping Ukraine and I don't see much of a difference between sending Panzerfausts vs tank. Still, it would be legitimate to say no, we want to stay out of this conflict (you may like it or not but that would be our decision to make). Scholz doesn't have the balls to really do one or the other.
However: Scholz is also in a bad spot here. Public support seems to be decreasing and, frankly, Ukraine can thank their leaders at least it part for that. The rather constant demanding, berating and even insulting of German politicians that came from Selenskyj, your foreign minister and especially your embessador didn't help at all. At least not after the first one or two weeks. Prices here are climbing in a way that it gets hard for the poorer part of society and along, the threat of nuclear war hanging in the air and along come your leaders and say, no we don't want to see your head of state, we want to see the chancellor, so we can give him our wishlist (had you had tried that with the Queen, it would have been bye bye NLAWs) and f*** you, if we don't get it. (Out don't say it was really like that but that is the it is perceived here, at least by some). I think, as a general rule of thumb, if you want something from someone you are nice and say please - especially in Germany. You may not like it and I'd agree, it shouldn't be necessary and it's one of our less sympathetic traits - and maybe I'd be too proud for that, too. Still, embessadors, for instance, should be professionals and able to read the psychology of a people.

Not sure if things were different without those incidents, maybe not, but that's certainly additional ammunition for Scholz to be able to not fully commit to delivering weapons.

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's bit funny that someone from Poland is now blaming Germany for not wanting to be a leader east of the Oder

I am really no fan of our chancellor. I'm in favour of helping Ukraine and I don't see much of a difference between sending Panzerfausts vs tank. Still, it would be legitimate to say no, we want to stay out of this conflict (you may like it or not but that would be our decision to make). Scholz doesn't have the balls to really do one or the other.
However: Scholz is also in a bad spot here. Public support seems to be decreasing and, frankly, Ukraine can thank their leaders at least it part for that. The rather constant demanding, berating and even insulting of German politicians that came from Selenskyj, your foreign minister and especially your embessador didn't help at all. At least not after the first one or two weeks. Prices here are climbing in a way that it gets hard for the poorer part of society and along, the threat of nuclear war hanging in the air and along come your leaders and say, no we don't want to see your head of state, we want to see the chancellor, so we can give him our wishlist (had you had tried that with the Queen, it would have been bye bye NLAWs) and f*** you, if we don't get it. (Out don't say it was really like that but that is the it is perceived here, at least by some). I think, as a general rule of thumb, if you want something from someone you are nice and say please - especially in Germany. You may not like it and I'd agree, it shouldn't be necessary and it's one of our less sympathetic traits - and maybe I'd be too proud for that, too. Still, embessadors, for instance, should be professionals and able to read the psychology of a people.

Not sure if things were different without those incidents, maybe not, but that's certainly additional ammunition for Scholz to be able to not fully commit to delivering weapons.

I meant to comment on this a few days ago... it is really hard to stay up-to-date with this thread. 😉
I'm no historian, just generally interested in this topic. I think you or the OpEd somewhat overestimate the impact the Nuremberg trials had on the general German population. I don't mean to diminish the importance of the trials. They were important in for the first time actually making the ruler of a country accountable for the crimes they commited. That was a powerful message to other rulers. They also made the crimes visible. However, they also allowed the common people to somewhat detach from all this. The top Nazis were convicted, the common people were rather superficially de-nazified and so the blame could be put on Hitler and his cronies who somehow demonically managed to seduce the people (which is still a theme that often repeated in many documentaries).
What's more, during the first few years, the Germans were much more busy generally surviving than facing their crimes. Afterwards, when the (West) German "Wirtschaftswunder" (economic miracle) kicked in, people didn't want to be bothered with the past and generally just didn't talk about the 3rd Reich. The reckoning came later when the following generation started asking what their parents had done.
Also, the indeed relatively thorough historical investigation of what happend during 1933-1945 alone did not make the Germans good democrats by itself. Apart from the fact that of course, the Allies did not actually give West Germany a choice, what really helped was that the people profited economically from being on this side of the Iron Curtain. They were actually better off after getting rid of the Nazis. The famous Marshall Plan, for instance, although by itself it had little real economic impact, the mere seeing everywhere "this was built with the help of the Marshall Plan" did a lot.
So, to get back on topic: I don't really think something akin to the Nuremberg trials would have changed that much after the fall of the Soviet Union. I guess that most Russians actually know the Soviet rulers weren't really nice guys. But in the end democracy and capitalism did not improve the lives of the common people. Putin did - whether by correlation or causation or just merely perception doesn't matter.

Maybe, as an afterthought: If we want to draw historical parallels... Maybe the more relevant part is how the Nazis came to power instead of how they ended. Democracy was weak during that time and politians cared more about there little power games than about the people. Then came the Great Depression which hit Germany extremely hard. Enter Hitler who blamed democracy and not only promissed improving the economic situation but actually did so after 1933 (again, it doesn't matter that he used plans drawn up by the previous administration and that Hitler could claim the effects the general recovery of the global economy had for himself).